Previous World Champion Engine Authors Speak Out...

[geots]

And Sign The OPEN letter to the ICGA President

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4038

excluding the Engine Author under examination .. we have all but one World Champion engine author since 1992 signing the letter
it should be remembered that these men were fierce competitors for many years ..so seeing them all agree to the notion that Rybka is an unauthorized Fruit derivative is quite astonishing and remarkable

Of course many other highly respected and talented Engine authors also signed the letter..some of whom might have been World Champions themselves if not losing to the engine in question or deciding not to even compete entirely in the ICGA World Championships given the participation of the allegedly illegally derived engine

Bob Hyatt ..a World Champion author himself of course did not sign as he is on the panel invested with making a determination on the derivative issue

i think this is unprecedented in the history of competitive sport Regards
Steve

Bob Hyatt ..a World Champion author himself of course did not sign as he is on the panel invested with making a determination on the derivative issue


I cant believe you state this in passing, because I cant believe you dont see anything wrong with him being on this panel. He has stated he knows Vas is guilty, and even if he is found innocent he is guilty. And you dont call this lynch mob mentality. How would you like to be the one Bob is making a decision about? This whole deal is about as slimy as computer chess can get.

No George, Hyatt is a world class expert and has nothing to gain personally. It's not Dr. Hyatt who lacks scruples but Vas does. So why shouldn't be on the panel? He knows his line of work backwards, he's one of the best. Vas was caught plain and simple. It's time to accept that and move on.

I imagine you would love to have someone on your jury who already thought you were guilty before the trial started and nothing would change their mind. Can Hyatt be impartial? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

[playjunior]

I agree that Hyatt being in the committee seems wrong.

Hyatt to me is one of the main accusers, he has systematically gathered, structured and argued for the evidence that Rybka is a Fruit clone.

People who have such direct involvement (on any side) cannot be considered "impartial judges".

The best would be if they have some scientists/authors from related fields, like go/checkers/whatever who can fully comprehend the evidence presented but do not have any previous involvement in the issue, whatsoever.

[Steve B]

And Sign The OPEN letter to the ICGA President

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4038

excluding the Engine Author under examination .. we have all but one World Champion engine author since 1992 signing the letter
it should be remembered that these men were fierce competitors for many years ..so seeing them all agree to the notion that Rybka is an unauthorized Fruit derivative is quite astonishing and remarkable

Of course many other highly respected and talented Engine authors also signed the letter..some of whom might have been World Champions themselves if not losing to the engine in question or deciding not to even compete entirely in the ICGA World Championships given the participation of the allegedly illegally derived engine

Bob Hyatt ..a World Champion author himself of course did not sign as he is on the panel invested with making a determination on the derivative issue

i think this is unprecedented in the history of competitive sport Regards
Steve

Bob Hyatt ..a World Champion author himself of course did not sign as he is on the panel invested with making a determination on the derivative issue


I cant believe you state this in passing, because I cant believe you dont see anything wrong with him being on this panel. He has stated he knows Vas is guilty, and even if he is found innocent he is guilty. And you dont call this lynch mob mentality. How would you like to be the one Bob is making a decision about? This whole deal is about as slimy as computer chess can get.

Bob can speak for himself but i can tell you that having moderated with him for over a year..
Bob motivation is based upon facts at his disposal
his position on Rybka from day 1 was derived from the evidence he reviewed and he came to his own conclusions based upon that evidence.
when Ippo first appeared in this forum in 09 we(the then mod team) agonized over whether or not to allow discussion..and then links
his vote was based upon the facts we had at that time regarding the accusations against it and regardless of his personal feelings about the engine
this is the scientific way of which he is a strict adherent
he has no preconceived notions or personal feelings towards any of this
i am sure he will not be the sole party making any decisions but rather one of a number of experts in the field deciding the issues
at the end of the day..this will be decided based upon the evidence against the engine and not the folks presenting that evidence

and i will tell you this George..

if i were falsely accused of something where there was no credible evidence against me ..you can bet your bottom dollar i would want Bob on the jury

as a personal comment..
what i find silly is your comment that the place is a cess pool after reading my post that past world champions signed the letter
if the top experts in the field for the past 20 years constitutes a cess pool to you ..then i am happy to take a dip and swim in it

you disappear from the board for almost 2 years and then come back raging around like a bull in a china shop totally uniformed and basically clueless as to the events leading up to all of this

do some reading first before you open your mouth and insert your foot

Have A nice Day Regards
Steve

[PauloSoare]

I suppose the oddest thing is that none of the authors actually signed the evidence, but rather it is backed by the analysis and conclusions of an unknown: Mark Watkins (who never wrote an engine that I heard of - feel free to correct me). One would think that the basis of such a serious letter would at least be backed by the analysis and conclusions of a well-known authority.

I am not sure that I would not prefer the judgement of anybody, even the most ignorant, to that of some of those "unbiased" world champions.
Besides, is it clear that the BB+ reports clearly support the Rybka is guilty theory? As I am not interested in its technicalities I only read the conclusions and I must say I am not the least convinced.

(Not for you, Albert: When responing to this you can omit the idiot, dude, etc. parts.)

Gabor, the only thought that came to mind for me in this ridiculous slime pit, and I think you will agree, is: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
- Jonathan Swift


Always the Best To You, My Friend

Some of those dunces are geniuses and deserve a hell of a lot of respect!

I try to get this across to others including Graham but to no avail.

I'll just say it. Vas is in fact guilty as charged. Sue Me!

Guilty to adopt in Rybka some ideas of Fruit and transform it into an
unbeatable program for five years? With all due respect I have for those who
signed the open letter, I wonder what is the opinion of everyone in the community.

[yanquis1972]

Of course....but then, without ANY kind of fundamental non engine woud exist, any about nothing. You always make use of some previous ground to do anything, isnt it?

F

Fern, you should be flattered. He is saying your works are worthy of being accused of plagiarizing Shakespeare!

You're out of your element here. Surely you meant to say Cervantes. But you can't improve upon Cervantes (nor Shakespeare).

Borges disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Men ... he_Quixote

English link at the end, highly recommended!

Miguel

all i can think of is 'pierre bernard's recliner of rage'

also highly recommended

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDKVU3tiBoQ

[bob]

And Sign The OPEN letter to the ICGA President

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4038

excluding the Engine Author under examination .. we have all but one World Champion engine author since 1992 signing the letter
it should be remembered that these men were fierce competitors for many years ..so seeing them all agree to the notion that Rybka is an authorized Fruit derivative is quite astonishing and remarkable

Of course many other highly respected and talented Engine authors also signed the letter..some of whom might have been World Champions themselves if not losing to the engine in question or deciding not to even compete entirely in the ICGA World Championships given the participation of the allegedly illegally derived engine

Bob Hyatt ..a World Champion author himself of course did not sign as he is on the panel invested with making a determination on the derivative issue

i think this is unprecedented in the history of competitive sport Regards
Steve

I suppose the oddest thing is that none of the authors actually signed the evidence, but rather it is backed by the analysis and conclusions of an unknown: Mark Watkins (who never wrote an engine that I heard of - feel free to correct me). One would think that the basis of such a serious letter would at least be backed by the analysis and conclusions of a well-known authority.

I looked at the evidence. Zach looked. Mark U. looked at it. Everybody has looked at it. So I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say/imply. The letter they signed clearly says they have looked at the evidence and are not happy with what they saw.

[bob]

And Sign The OPEN letter to the ICGA President

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4038

excluding the Engine Author under examination .. we have all but one World Champion engine author since 1992 signing the letter
it should be remembered that these men were fierce competitors for many years ..so seeing them all agree to the notion that Rybka is an authorized Fruit derivative is quite astonishing and remarkable

Of course many other highly respected and talented Engine authors also signed the letter..some of whom might have been World Champions themselves if not losing to the engine in question or deciding not to even compete entirely in the ICGA World Championships given the participation of the allegedly illegally derived engine

Bob Hyatt ..a World Champion author himself of course did not sign as he is on the panel invested with making a determination on the derivative issue

i think this is unprecedented in the history of competitive sport Regards
Steve

I suppose the oddest thing is that none of the authors actually signed the evidence, but rather it is backed by the analysis and conclusions of an unknown: Mark Watkins (who never wrote an engine that I heard of - feel free to correct me). One would think that the basis of such a serious letter would at least be backed by the analysis and conclusions of a well-known authority.

it seems to me that by signing the letter and unequivocally stating that they believe Rybka to be an unauthorized derivative of Rybka ..that they also accept the evidence as offered
dont know to what extent they have reviewed the evidence but the reasonable assumption is they have reviewed it closely
these men ..each and every one of them..have outstanding reputations and would not sign a document like that without considerable fore thought
Steve

I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that it is based on the analysis and conclusions of an unknown. It is a huge sticky point, because no matter how competent Watkins might be, he is not a recognized authority in the field, which means that the data, process, analysis and conclusions would need to be redone by an independent and recognized authority to confirm his paper at the very least.

It is much as if I wrote an opening book claiming to debunk a number of established conclusions on a famous variation, providing all the analysis to prove it. Even if 100% correct, no one can begin to take my word for it, and it would need far more scrutinizing than had the exact same book been signed Kasparov.

Actually my only gripe with Watkins (AKA "BB") is that he insists on not posting here and only on OPEN
a forum IMHO that is completely redundant ..was established under contrived circumstances(basically just an ego play for the forum creator) and would not even have 2 posts a day if not for reading and replying to whats posted here
he obviously reads here daily and even permits his Private Pm's to be posted here
this just seems silly to me
anyway..i digress i guess
Steve

I don't have a gripe with his analysis or conclusions, just that as the basis of an official accusation, it will warrant deeper scrutiny simply because he is not a well-established authority in the field. It is a fact that is all.

I have a gripe with posting anonymously in general, especially if the content goes so deep as to question or confirm a program's legitimacy. I am a firm believer in taking responsibility for one's words, which anonymity dispenses with. (No offense BB)

I would suggest you hang on to your hat, and keep your seatbelt securely fastened. There is more to this story than has been revealed to date. It will be exposed on the ICGA WIKI however. And it really does paint an ugly picture that I did not expect.

[bob]

And Sign The OPEN letter to the ICGA President

http://hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4038

excluding the Engine Author under examination .. we have all but one World Champion engine author since 1992 signing the letter
it should be remembered that these men were fierce competitors for many years ..so seeing them all agree to the notion that Rybka is an authorized Fruit derivative is quite astonishing and remarkable

Of course many other highly respected and talented Engine authors also signed the letter..some of whom might have been World Champions themselves if not losing to the engine in question or deciding not to even compete entirely in the ICGA World Championships given the participation of the allegedly illegally derived engine

Bob Hyatt ..a World Champion author himself of course did not sign as he is on the panel invested with making a determination on the derivative issue

Then... shouldn't be a proper procedure to sign and recuse himself to be in the secretariat?

Also, if signing (accusing) and being part of the process is not expected, how come M. Uniacke is signing and H. Williamson is part of the investigation secretariat?

I am surprised that nobody has seen this as a problem.

Or the goal is to give Vas enough reasons to sue ICGA in case the decision does not favor him?

Miguel

i think this is unprecedented in the history of competitive sport Regards
Steve

The secretariat does not actually have the decision making power. AFAIK they only manage the presentation of evidence by both sides.

Most likely the ICGA will assemble a panel of outsiders. As noted elsewhere, in the LION++ case Schaeffer and Bjornsson were on the panel.

The why Bob is not signing?

Miguel

Because I am one of three that will "run the trial". We (the three of us) will allow both sides to "back and forth" a few iterations, until no further information shows up, and then we will analyze the presentation, compile a formal report, and submit it to David. He will then do with it as he sees fit. Should that be to convene another group to consider the evidence (I would go after Ken Thompson, Dave Slate, and perhaps a couple of others that have been out of CC for a few years).

I believe that everyone knows what I believe happened. And I will reveal some more info as the time becomes right. But signing a letter, that is addressed to myself (as a member of this tribunal/secretariat) seemed to be a bit silly. Mark sent it to me and I declined for the reason given and he understood my point perfectly...

[bob]

Isn't, this letter, somewhat late? It looks like -to me-as if we were reading a letter written by Erasmo of Rotterdam about the sins of the papacy.
Besides, isn't Rybka 4 very far from rybka beta 1 and so very very far of Fruit?
If any familiarity is enough to talk of cloning or plagiarism, my God, there is scarce a thing in this Earth free of that.

I do not like the odour that exhales this letter...

fern

If Rybka 1 is heavily derivative of Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 4 is descended from Rybka 1, then Rybka 4 is still a descendant of a derivative work of Fruit 2.1.

Pretty simple, old man.

Fern is correct. It is possible for C to be derivative of B and B of A, but C is not a derivative of A.

Example
Lets say a program has 5 parts for simplicity of argument. So, A = a1+a2+a3+a4+a5. Now, B = b1+a2+a3+a4+b5, thus B is based on A or parts of A. Now, C = b1 + c2+c3+c4 + b5 and c2!=a2, c3!=a3, c4!=a4, thus C is based on B but has nothing in common with A.

Note: != means not equal

"possible" != "probable"

[BubbaTough]

Isn't, this letter, somewhat late? It looks like -to me-as if we were reading a letter written by Erasmo of Rotterdam about the sins of the papacy.
Besides, isn't Rybka 4 very far from rybka beta 1 and so very very far of Fruit?
If any familiarity is enough to talk of cloning or plagiarism, my God, there is scarce a thing in this Earth free of that.

I do not like the odour that exhales this letter...

fern

If Rybka 1 is heavily derivative of Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 4 is descended from Rybka 1, then Rybka 4 is still a descendant of a derivative work of Fruit 2.1.

Pretty simple, old man.

Fern is correct. It is possible for C to be derivative of B and B of A, but C is not a derivative of A.

Example
Lets say a program has 5 parts for simplicity of argument. So, A = a1+a2+a3+a4+a5. Now, B = b1+a2+a3+a4+b5, thus B is based on A or parts of A. Now, C = b1 + c2+c3+c4 + b5 and c2!=a2, c3!=a3, c4!=a4, thus C is based on B but has nothing in common with A.

Note: != means not equal

"possible" != "probable"

This issue will resolve itself. The ruckus is all about deciding whether to ask for Rybka source code in order to compete. Once this is done, the panel will see the code for the program that will compete, NOT Rybka 1. It is my opinion they will be extremely different (its not as if this is sneaking up on Vas, even if there was inappropriate stuff in there as recent as a year ago, it seems likely he has rewritten things by now). So the net result of all the sound and fury is that a couple people will finally fulfill their dream of getting to see the Rybka source.

I am not saying that just because the latest version of Rybka cluster source likely shares no code with Fruit everything is ok-dokay ethically, legally, or whatever...just that the process invoked by this letter will be unlikely to resolve anything other than forcing a commercial to choose between letting a few folks gawk at their code and not competing.

-Sam